Re: EIPE LOGWi Matt. and Luke

Daniel Ria得 (danielrr@mad.servicom.es)
Wed, 26 Nov 1997 18:53:38 +0100

John M. Moe wrote:
>I am still wondering why the Dative LOGWi is used in both Mat. and Luke,
>where we would expect the accusative
....
>In the account of the healing of the centurion's servant, the centurion
>requests "EIPE LOGWi" (Mat. 8:8, Luke 7:7). Mary Grosvenor calls this
>a "cognate dative" and directs the reader to Max Zerwick's grammar where
>he says. "This <<internal>> or <<cognate>> dative (so called because the
>noun has the same root as the verb), although it is not entirely foreign
>to classical usage, e.g. FUGH FEUGEIN, GAMWi GAMEIN, nevertheless
>clearly rests in the NT on a Semitic basis." (Zerwick, p. 21)"
>
>If this is influenced by the Hebrew absolute infinitive as Zerwick
>indicates I would think that so common a notion as speaking a speech
>would show up in LXX translation. The only occurrence which I can find
>of a form of LEGW with LOGWi OR LOGOIS in Biblical literature is in this
>one account of the words of the centurion in his request for healing of
>the servant. This, along with the context, leads me to ask if this is
>not a dative of means, highlighting the point of the centurion's
>illustration of the authority of his own word. I.e. it is by
>Jesus' word, that he expects his servant to be healed. EIPE LOGWi KAI
>hIAQHSETAI (hIAQHTW Luke) "Say by word?" "Say with a word?" I'm afraid
>I can't put in clear, normal English what I think is being said here.

>2. Any comments on what use of the dative this is, or how I have
>massacred it?

Este uso del dativo me parece sumamente interesante, especialmente
teniendo en cuenta que no es tratado en los comentarios de Fitzmyer y
Lagrange, ni en las gram'aticas de Blass& Debrunner&Funk, Hoffmann
&Siebenthal o la sintaxis de Turner.
En mi opini'on, la "etiqueta" de "dativus internus seu cognatus" de
Zerwick es especialmente desgraciada: IMHO "internus" debe reservarse
propiamente para un tipo de construcci'on del complemento directo. Dentro
de los diversos tipos de "complemento directo interno" es especialmente
frecuente la "figura etymologica" o "*sch=ma e)tumologiko/n*". Esta figura
etimol'ogica aparece en otro tipo de construcciones no directas como
*ga/mw| gehamhkw\s th\n e)mh\n mhte/ra* Demosth.39.26, o de complemento
externo (cf. Kieckers, E. (1912): "Zum Accusativus limitationis in
Griechischen." IF 30, p. 361), pero entonces conviene retener el t'ermino
"figura" que indica que el giro no es propiamente una construcci'on
gramatical, sino una figura de estilo.
La funci'on de *lo/gw|* con el imperativo (en el sentido "ordenar")
en Eu.Luc.7.7 es claramente instrumental (de "modo" dice Eseverri Hualde,
Crisstomo. 1963. "El griego de San Lucas." Pamplona. ad loc). Ahora bien,
la construcci'on no es propiamente griega, o al menos no parece pertenecer
al griego cl'asico, salvo que yo est'e confundido. Una explicaci'on es la
de los semitismos, pero no debe descartarse el Lat'in:

Brian E. Wilson wrote:
>If the official was a centurion, however, should we not also be
>considering whether the phrase might be a Latinism? The Vulgate
>rendering of EIPE LOGWi in both Mt 8:8 and Lk 7:7 is DIC VERBO.

La expresi'on (en ablativo) es efectivamente latina, cf.:
"quin tu uno verbo dic quid est quod me velis" Terenc."And." 45.
La traducci'on de este giro en griego emplear'ia el dativo en funci'on
instrumental: Es posible que el centuri'on se expresara en latin y sus
palabras fueran traducidas de este modo? El comentario de un experto en la
sociolog'ia del ej'ercito romano de la 'epoca ser'ia de gran ayuda.

Valete.

___________________________________________________________________
Daniel Rian~o Rufilanchas
c. Santa Engracia 52, 7 dcha.
28010-Madrid
Espan~a
e-mail: danielrr@mad.servicom.es